(ci)


The Boulderado
The seventh of April, 19__


B. Chavez, Foreman
Custodial Division
Department of the Physical Plant
The University of Colorado at Boulder
Boulder, Colorado 80309


Dear Bennie:


When I seek exemplification of custodial support, three propositional functions yearn for the insertion of a proper name:

(1) Should cleanliness stand next to godliness, then must the custodian be a theologian.

And what may one know of the mind of the deity? that it is mathematical.

Thus: should one be a custodian, then one must be a mathematician.

(In fact the converse also holds. The proof is left as an exercise.)

(Hint: apply Tukey’s lemma.)

(2) As, Love has pitched his mansion in the place of excrement, so, it cannot surprise, the custodian, whose work is cleanliness, must labor in pitiable filth. And so his language then is vile.

Thus: should one be a custodian, one must be able then to ask, What fucking o’clock is it? and ask this with aplomb.

(3) Let work expand, to fill the time available for it; then work is gaseous. But this result is classical. And so the theorem fails, for small quantum numbers and in situations of extreme disgust, viz., the cleaning of toilets.

Thus work, should it be sufficiently noxious, attains a liquid phase.

And thus: should one be a custodian, one’s behavior then must be nonParkinsonian.

But Leonardo Garbonzo instantiates these predicates.


Yours in Joyce,

Maximilian, Count Dog